9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of the products manufactured by the petitioners is refining of oils and in the course of oil refining, acid oil comes into existence. The petitioners in respect of their manufacture were liable to pay excise duty and it is the claim of the petitioners that under a mistake of law, the duty was paid under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Act. The petitioners claimed that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act. The petitioners filed reply and the Assistant Collector by impugned order dated February 22,1985 held that the claim from May 1975 to July 19, 1982 was hit by the provisions of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and the petitioners are entitled to refund of only a sum of Rs. 1,589.46 for the period commencing from July ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the recovery being without any authority of law, the petitioners are entitled to refund and the provisions of limitation under the Act, which are binding on the officers exercising jurisdiction under the Act, are not binding while passing orders in writ jurisdiction. In view of catena of decisions of this Court, therefore, the petitioners are right in claiming that the claim could not be refuse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accepted on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is, therefore, necessary to set aside the order of the Assistant Collector so far as rejecting the claim of refund for the period commencing from May 1975 to July 19,1982 and remit the matter to the Assistant Collector for disposal of the claim on merits. 4. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the order of the Assistant Collector rejecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
